View Full Version : comment
The islamic army at poitiers wasn't a band of bandits. I would look at them as the most eliete of the whole islamic world. They were led by the appointed governer of spain. abd ar-rahaman was killed after the saracen army was routed while he was trying to whip his troops into another charge. In this battle the europeans had as many as the arabs did, not being outnumbered 5 to 1. Mongols invaded europe again in the 1280s and was easily defeated by the hungarians on the field. About one on one, a it's hard for a horse archer to kill a knight in plate or mail armour. And the knight can's catch up to the horse archer. But battles aren't fought like this. About the tank, how is it possible for AKs to harm tanks? the machine gun will just gun them down with out any harm to the tank. I don't know what you mean by "feudal knight/2cavalry archers, the final number may be equal" . The heavily armed europeans wiped out the entire mongol band in 1237. Here is an instance where the large heavily equipped army defeated a small lightly armoured army. The cases in history were usually where a small heavily armoured army was defeated by a large lightly armed army, not the opposite. The europeans needed to work in cooperation between their foot soldiers calvary. not sending a heavy knight out to chase one horse archer. The european crossbows during the mongol invasion had an effective range of over 100 meters. The large mongol bow had 60. The mongols had to close in fast and rely on the number of their archers to put a lot more arrows in the air than the european crossbow men could and their bows have a higher discharge rate.
In carnage and culture victor hanson explains how the europeans were stronger because they were more democratical. freedom was another thing that seperates the west from the east. The europeans were more free than the arabs or chinese or indians. But I think that the reason that the europeans were better was largely because of their advanced technology, wealthier economy, and prudent nature.
the knightly sword
05-02-2005, 10:21
In carnage and culture victor hanson explains how the europeans were stronger because they were more democratical. freedom was another thing that seperates the west from the east. The europeans were more free than the arabs or chinese or indians. But I think that the reason that the europeans were better was largely because of their advanced technology, wealthier economy, and prudent nature.
ahahaahahahhaah :biggrin: , no not really , the arabian calpihate kingdoms was much more sophisticated at the medevils . i see no reason for you to say that europe was modern on year 1250+ then asia . the western kingdom which you tell was really modern was more reling on magic then sciencetist . baghdad (which now you see as an unmodern ocuppated city) was the city of knowledge back then . there came scientist from all over the world to study in baghdad , but unfortunly our jealous dumb headed european kings bribed the mongols to an invasion . the baghdadian libary was burnt down , and the basics of our technolgy came from cordoba . which the spanish states stole and spread it over to the western kingdoms after its fall . did you know that the first medcine shop was built in baghdad.
ive got one question to you =when you said that europe was modern and had democrasy =did you mean now ? . because there is no way that there even was a sign of existence of democrasy , the king had power by god was a verse to lure the stupid little people . the kings would never wana be just an ordinary man as the others .
talkin about china . china could be super power might aswell . there high ranked military could crush every eliite cavlary , with there size and brain . they would crush any western kingdom at the medievil times , no doubt about that .
p.s sorry for the bad english.
p.s2, as i said before dont underastimate anybody , because even the weak can achive victory . please try to read about asia before you start sumthin against them .
ahahaahahahhaah :biggrin: , no not really , the arabian calpihate kingdoms was much more sophisticated at the medevils . i see no reason for you to say that europe was modern on year 1250+ then asia . the western kingdom which you tell was really modern was more reling on magic then sciencetist . baghdad (which now you see as an unmodern ocuppated city) was the city of knowledge back then . there came scientist from all over the world to study in baghdad , but unfortunly our jealous dumb headed european kings bribed the mongols to an invasion . the baghdadian libary was burnt down , and the basics of our technolgy came from cordoba . which the spanish states stole and spread it over to the western kingdoms after its fall . did you know that the first medcine shop was built in baghdad.
ive got one question to you =when you said that europe was modern and had democrasy =did you mean now ? . because there is no way that there even was a sign of existence of democrasy , the king had power by god was a verse to lure the stupid little people . the kings would never wana be just an ordinary man as the others .
talkin about china . china could be super power might aswell . there high ranked military could crush every eliite cavlary , with there size and brain . they would crush any western kingdom at the medievil times , no doubt about that .
p.s sorry for the bad english.
p.s2, as i said before dont underastimate anybody , because even the weak can achive victory . please try to read about asia before you start sumthin against them .
Actually, you are the one that don't know anything about history that's making wild comments and laughing at people and calling me thoughtless. All you say is that the europeans were stupid, which was impossible. You are kind of racist against the europeans, I never called the asians stupid neither did hanson in his book, you use such harsh terms that I no longer want to argue with you.
the knightly sword
05-02-2005, 20:51
Actually, you are the one that don't know anything about history that's making wild comments and laughing at people and calling me thoughtless. All you say is that the europeans were stupid, which was impossible. You are kind of racist against the europeans, I never called the asians stupid neither did hanson in his book, you use such harsh terms that I no longer want to argue with you.
hehehe lol your a good stater :biggrin: . i never said that europeans was stupid , second why should i be raceist against my self :bash: . ive never said that europeans are stupid , i only said that knowledge wasent in our priorties on the medevil ages. im not an historian and im glad that you express your opinion about me you are what i call dierct :cheers:. . hehehe im easly irrtated , and buddy dont forget a laugh can make you live longer :bday: , im only makeing jokes it doesnt mean that im laughing of mean demands . call me whatever you want atleast i know who im am .
the knightly sword
05-02-2005, 21:21
you call me racist , harsh , and iqnorant hahaha so funny :biggrin: .
1.first off , you say that im racist against europeans , ehh im european why should i be racist against my self :gaga2: . im highly setted against racism , you dont even know me in real a statement doesnt tell the persons tale .
2.i know some about history maybe not like others in this forum who studies in collage , but still i know stuff ,
4. ive never said or stated that europeans were dumb , but i just said that they werent so sophisticated , they were , more wild and a little barberish why of thinking , but hey its in every europeans blood to be a little wild even if it have been lost in our civilsation nature , knowledge wasent in our higest priorites back then. i never said that europeans were stupid , but what you stated was that all people in europe is smart , your`e reling on you hanson book= the hanson families were all born naturally traders , but because of that , it doesnt mean that every citzen on european soil have to be smart , that was what you told uss .
5.its the oppsit you call me racist = after all of your rabbleing about europeans armies were stronger then asian armies you seem to be little raceist .
6. and on your harsh thing , its my opnion and you dont have the right to complain about it , if i wanna be wild its my thing we live in demcrati counties hello :halloha: . you made a misstake saying that but i forgive ya , because every one makes misstakes,
p.s im not laughing at people , im just jokeing , its not of mean causes.
Angryminer
05-02-2005, 21:57
Please stick to the topic and stop personal arguments!
Angryminer
the knightly sword
05-02-2005, 22:02
well i just have to clear some stuff off i have to defend my self from personal attacks.
you call me racist , harsh , and iqnorant hahaha so funny :biggrin: .
1.first off , you say that im racist against europeans , ehh im european why should i be racist against my self :gaga2: . im highly setted against racism , you dont even know me in real a statement doesnt tell the persons tale .
2.i know some about history maybe not like others in this forum who studies in collage , but still i know stuff ,
4. ive never said or stated that europeans were dumb , but i just said that they werent so sophisticated , they were , more wild and a little barberish why of thinking , but hey its in every europeans blood to be a little wild even if it have been lost in our civilsation nature , knowledge wasent in our higest priorites back then. i never said that europeans were stupid , but what you stated was that all people in europe is smart , your`e reling on you hanson book= the hanson families were all born naturally traders , but because of that , it doesnt mean that every citzen on european soil have to be smart , that was what you told uss .
5.its the oppsit you call me racist = after all of your rabbleing about europeans armies were stronger then asian armies you seem to be little raceist .
6. and on your harsh thing , its my opnion and you dont have the right to complain about it , if i wanna be wild its my thing we live in demcrati counties hello :halloha: . you made a misstake saying that but i forgive ya , because every one makes misstakes,
p.s im not laughing at people , im just jokeing , its not of mean causes.
Yes I do have the right to tell you to stop guessing that I don't know anything about asia, you don't know anything about europe and asia and are making wild comments and attacking me saying that I'm uneducated. You called me ignorant first by telling me to start reading books. And it's not in an european person's blood to be wild.
I never said that every european was smart because of their race.
well i just have to clear some stuff off i have to defend my self from personal attacks.
Actually, I am defending myself from your attacks. You started attacking me from here:
i think you should think a little .
the knightly sword
06-02-2005, 11:11
Yes I do have the right to tell you to stop guessing that I don't know anything about asia, you don't know anything about europe and asia and are making wild comments and attacking me saying that I'm uneducated. You called me ignorant first by telling me to start reading books. And it's not in an european person's blood to be wild.
I never said that every european was smart because of their race.
first dont find any false acusements that i didnt say , i just said dont underastimate , do you got an issue in makeing stuff complicated?.
1. never said you were uneducated , i said dont underastimate its no deffrence between an european or an asian army , its a question about morale and about displine , even an bunch of peasants can kill an army of swords men if they fight for what they belive in.
2. when i said thats it is in every europeans blood to be wild , its my god damn thing to belive in :bash: :bash: and its not yours or anybody to tell me what to belive in .
3. well and third you said i dont know anything about europe or asia , well im from sweden and i know alot of stuff about my country, ans sweden lays in northern europe , its now you calling me uneducated
( dont make me irrtated on you im easly irrtated )
4. "I never said that every european was smart because of their race" , well it seem like you did and clearly pointed it out .
5. if i wanna make wild comments its MY GOD DAMN THING AND NOT YOURS TO TELL ME ITS WRONG.
6. yes i maybe started it but as i see and what i heard from your reaction and surelly is from your point of view " your the really smart one and im the little stupid who doesnt no anything about the world" then you should end it if your so smart as you try to be
7. ok THAT MEANING HAD NO OFFENCE IN IT IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT THAT MEANING MEANS THEN ASK DONT JUST RABBLE UP STUFF TO YOUR ADVANTAGE . man really strange people start to appear .
8. look kid im older then you dont try to play 23 year old collage student or something . your 16 years old and you call yourself highly educated , school is only basic of what high school and collage is , dont try to state that your highly educated because you arent , who knows you maybe are a kid who thinks hes mature enough to call older people stupid , you maybe study alot more about history and politics but still you cant call older stupid , im not saying because of your age you cant participate a disscussion , but try to respect people who are older then you .
Webmaster
06-02-2005, 15:13
stop the personal flaws, as angryminer said
the knightly sword
06-02-2005, 16:53
i wanna end it but asoon as i try he replies an counter attack . he trys to make a scene were its all my fault so i get all the critic by the forum public . But ohh no im not gonna let him slip out cheap and clean . when he stops i will to but if he takes offensiv words i will counter attack them :swordfigh . :rumble: :knight: . no body is gonna put me in this child tactic= "he started it" :cheers:
Webmaster
06-02-2005, 17:32
sometimes, to step back, is the best "offensive" tactic.
the knightly sword
07-02-2005, 17:10
well right now i dont know what to say or decide , im expecting an answer , im awating .
The islamic army at poitiers wasn't a band of bandits. I would look at them as the most eliete of the whole islamic world. They were led by the appointed governer of spain. abd ar-rahaman was killed after the saracen army was routed while he was trying to whip his troops into another charge. don't know what was your source, but IÇve found in encyclopedy of european lands and rulers on european continent that Abd-ar-Rahman was the last Ummayid caliph who in 750! ran from Damascus to Cordoba and established there famous emirate (from 929 caliphate) of Cordoba. Maybe you mean another famous islamic "governor of Spain" named Abd-ar-Rahman, but it definitely couldn't be this famous one, because battle of Poitiers happened 18 years before his arrival to Spain! Maybe your sources are some frankish legends or papal congratulations, but it is a lie.
Mongols invaded europe again in the 1280s and was easily defeated by the hungarians on the field. . The heavily armed europeans wiped out the entire mongol band in 1237. Here is an instance where the large heavily equipped army defeated a small lightly armoured army. I am really sorry, but nowhere I could find information about that mongol invasion in 1280, could you please give me some? at least the battle (whwre did it take place). Also 'd like to know what battle you mean in 1237...
Well, I don't know the exact numbers, but from my information about bows and their fire range, range of turkish composite recurved bow was in average about 150 metres(source: Traditional Bowyer's Bible), I really don't understand how Turks could be defeated by Mogols with bows with 50m range.
In carnage and culture victor hanson explains how the europeans were stronger because they were more democratical. freedom was another thing that seperates the west from the east. The europeans were more free than the arabs or chinese or indians. But I think that the reason that the europeans were better was largely because of their advanced technology, wealthier economy, and prudent nature.I don't know which "europeans" does mr. Hanson mean. Those few knights who really were free, but everything but democratic? (democracy returned to Europe in times when heavily armouder cavalry already has left it long ago) or that bunch of footmen? so called free mercenaries came to transalpine Europe (so Europe north of Alps) in 13th century, but were used as main forces in 16th and 17th century. The rest of european armies was as "free" as any other "slave" army. The only difference might be motivation to defend own country.
When Europeans were defeating Chíinese, Indians or other nations, it was not because of their ideals or freedom, but better weapons (not armour!), because they had better guns!
I don't know what you mean by "feudal knight/2cavalry archers, the final number may be equal"The point was that while "european economy" was able to arm one heavy knight and 10 imobile peasants, "steppe economy" was able to arm about 5 very mobile and deadly cavalry archers. Knights easily resisted rain of steppe arrows, but not their support troops. And without this support they were unable to defeat them alone. Numbers of soldiers do not reflect real stance of strength.
But yes, european knight couldn't be killed easily by mongolian archer, but after a few days of threat of fast archers right behind them, they couldn't take off their armour so they were very tired, so bery demoralized.
the knightly sword
07-02-2005, 21:14
Dsj i take back all my words and i to give me dearest apoligize , this life doesnt have enough hours for hate . so what do you say lets take down arms and shake hands :smile: .
Webmaster
07-02-2005, 23:49
and have a drink in the inn !!!
don't know what was your source, but IÇve found in encyclopedy of european lands and rulers on european continent that Abd-ar-Rahman was the last Ummayid caliph who in 750! ran from Damascus to Cordoba and established there famous emirate (from 929 caliphate) of Cordoba. Maybe you mean another famous islamic "governor of Spain" named Abd-ar-Rahman, but it definitely couldn't be this famous one, because battle of Poitiers happened 18 years before his arrival to Spain! Maybe your sources are some frankish legends or papal congratulations, but it is a lie.
I am really sorry, but nowhere I could find information about that mongol invasion in 1280, could you please give me some? at least the battle (whwre did it take place). Also 'd like to know what battle you mean in 1237...
Well, I don't know the exact numbers, but from my information about bows and their fire range, range of turkish composite recurved bow was in average about 150 metres(source: Traditional Bowyer's Bible), I really don't understand how Turks could be defeated by Mogols with bows with 50m range.
I don't know which "europeans" does mr. Hanson mean. Those few knights who really were free, but everything but democratic? (democracy returned to Europe in times when heavily armouder cavalry already has left it long ago) or that bunch of footmen? so called free mercenaries came to transalpine Europe (so Europe north of Alps) in 13th century, but were used as main forces in 16th and 17th century. The rest of european armies was as "free" as any other "slave" army. The only difference might be motivation to defend own country.
When Europeans were defeating Chíinese, Indians or other nations, it was not because of their ideals or freedom, but better weapons (not armour!), because they had better guns!
The point was that while "european economy" was able to arm one heavy knight and 10 imobile peasants, "steppe economy" was able to arm about 5 very mobile and deadly cavalry archers. Knights easily resisted rain of steppe arrows, but not their support troops. And without this support they were unable to defeat them alone. Numbers of soldiers do not reflect real stance of strength.
But yes, european knight couldn't be killed easily by mongolian archer, but after a few days of threat of fast archers right behind them, they couldn't take off their armour so they were very tired, so bery demoralized.
About poitiers, carnage and culture and every other book I have read said it was him and it was the best army the saracens could field. Since I can't show you the books, look at the battle at wikipedia.
All primary european sources on the mongols documents the invasion of 1280s. Also many books today. I can't name one modern book off my head. the band of mongol recon scouts were wiped out by the holy roman emperor and the hungarian king. This was recorded in many chronicles the most famous being the chronica majora.
The whole book of carnage and culture is about european democracy. The europeans had the roots of democracy from the greeks. The serfs were not slaves, they were free from arbtrary torture by the lords, the ottoman galley slaves were forced to row 20 hours a day. they were not allowed to wear anything, when they fell they were whipped unitl they appear dead and thrown overboard. It's obvious that europe was always more democratic and humane than china or especially the middle east where slavery was considered a just thing. When the europeans stopped using armour, the chinese were still using them on a wide scale. A clear sign of inferiority. So when you talked about european armour, the europeans out developed armour already and has nothing to do with the middle ages. And it was becuase of their ideas of freedom that contributed to crushing the chinese army who was oppressed by the emperor.
The european militia man was completely not what you think they were. They were not a bunch of rogues with no armour. They were well equipped and armoured man wearing chain mail and carrying shields with heavy weapons and crossbows that could defeat the mongol army. The european militia man was a part of the backbone of the european army that was better equipped than their islamic slave ounterparts with rags and a stick. I have been saying this all the time, the europeans were all well equipped.
About the bows, the mongol bows could send their arrows 200 yards and were effective at 60. This was observed in history and in modern tests as cited in modern books. The mongols relied on their elieteness of the troops unlike the islamic slave soldiers with sticks. That means that all of the mongols army was up to the mongols heighest standards while only a very small part of the islamic army were reasonably trained and equipped. Same with the hungarian situation at sajo, the mongols had close to 100000 mongol horsemen who were all the same eliete. But the hungarians had only 65000 in total and many of this were low quality cumans who dosen't count as europeans.
And frankish knight, I never tried to fight you. I'm glad that you are willing to be frieds.
About poitiers, carnage and culture and every other book I have read said it was him and it was the best army the saracens could field. Since I can't show you the books, look at the battle at wikipedia.well, My information came from my university studies of history. Here, based on the newest researches I was told thatbattle of Poitiers was no crucial breaking point where Saracens were trying to expand their rule over Pyrenées. It also was no "bandit" band, as you misunderstood me.
Believe me. Arabs conquered most of Spain very rapidly in several years and they were only sending some small troops overy pyrenes to plunder a little. Their "force" that was met by Charles Martel was one of them which had lost.
It was propaganda of Frankish kings and the pope who made from this unimportant meeting crucial battle for Europe. for more information about if, ask please PhDr. Václav Drska from Charles University, Prague.
When Frankish majordom dynasty of Pipins claimed frankish crown, they needed to support their claim by something. Victory over large and dangerous Arab army was a perfect "legitimation" alongside with others. Battle of Poitiers then is probably one of the best acts of Propaganda in whole european history. Maybe it was some Abd-ar-Rahman, but not that famous Ummayid emir whose descendant Abd-ar-Rahman III became caliph of Cordoba in 929.
spo again:battle of Poitiers was meeting of large army of Charles Martel (on a way to subordinate duke of Aquitaine) and band of Saracens that had lost on their plunder-trip. If you look at historical sources, this battle was not mentioned immediately. It was first mentioned in times of majordomus Pipin(son of Martel), who then claimed throne of Frankish kings.
PS: famous Abd-ar-Rahman (Ummayid one) was 20 when he left Damascus in 750, so I am sure it was another guy caled Abd-ar-Rahman. Sure it was no famous emir of Cordoba who led saracen forces at poitiers :smile: Make a little research anywhere and you'll see that it was SOME Abdarahman, but not emir of Cordoba, because Abd-ar-Rahman, emir of Cordoba, settled in Cordoba in 756 when he was 26, so I am sure he couldn't lead saracen army at Poitiers (2 years old somehwere he came first 24 years later)
All primary european sources on the mongols documents the invasion of 1280s. Also many books today. I can't name one modern book off my head. the band of mongol recon scouts were wiped out by the holy roman emperor and the hungarian king. This was recorded in many chronicles the most famous being the chronica majora.
Sorry? Few notes to this:
in 1280 there was no Holy Roman Emperor between 1250 and 1312 (Frederick II. Hohenstauf died in 1250, then there was interregnum and next king of romans or roman king came in 1312, when Henry VII(as emperor) of Luxembourg was crowned in Rome!!) then I am sure that king Rudolph of Hapsburg bothered his majesty to wip out mongolian scouts..how? with his army? I could believe that in 1280 king of Romans(I guess this was the official title of Rudolph of Hapsburg) was on some diplomatical mission in Hungary, but I am sure that he wouldn't risk meeting with mongolian army. Maybe they met some band of scouts, but I wouldn't call it battle.
Not everything what is written in medieval chronicles is true, my friend. So I would really like to give info where this "battle" happened, if a meeting of scouts and majesty of HolyRomanEmperor (who wasn't Holy RomanEmperor) and king of Hungary could be considered as battle.
so, sorry, this proves me that I can't believe that mr. Victor Hanson and his Carnage and Culture. If he is a historic, how could he seriously say that in 1280 there was Holy Roman Emperor? what is he?
I rather don't somment your "signs of inferiority" above chinese etc. I am really not sure if European values are better than other. If there was any reason of European rule in the world it was not ideas of democracy (which hardly was applied in subjected lands), but weapons - guns.
The european militia man was completely not what you think they were. They were not a bunch of rogues with no armour. They were well equipped and armoured man wearing chain mail and carrying shields with heavy weapons and crossbows that could defeat the mongol army. The european militia man was a part of the backbone of the european army that was better equipped than their islamic slave ounterparts with rags and a stick. I have been saying this all the time, the europeans were all well equipped.
depends on which part of european army do you mean, which time do you mean. In 12th and 13th century, chainmail was still expensive enough not to be given to some militia troops. Even poorer nobles had problems to buy good armou to their sons so I am sure that militia troops were not as well equiped as you descirbe. My source is Georges Duby, one of the most respected medievalists, and his work Dimanche de Bouvines (sunday of Bouvines, 14 july 1214) where he describes european warfare from approx. 1000. A.D. to 13th century. Fact is that in 14th century situation was quite different (in France, in eastern Europe, that was to fight Mongols and Ottomans, most of this was delayed about 100,in 14th century about 50 years (it changed when "French" dynasties of Anjou and Luxembourg ruled Hungary and Bohemia and imported there French culture-sure about Bohemia, possible in Hungary)
Same with the hungarian situation at sajo, the mongols had close to 100000 mongol horsemen who were all the same eliete. But the hungarians had only 65000 in total and many of this were low quality cumans who dosen't count as europeans.
sorry? 100.000 vs 65.000 men in medieval battle in Europe in 1241? and where did you get that? in some chronicle? Mongol population wasn't so numerous to be able to send such army in Europe
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.